Pitch Accent on Discourse Marker and Discourse Construction

1
Pitch Accent on Discourse Marker and Discourse
Construction

• Kiwako Ito
• Ross Metusalem

2
Discourse Markers

• Discourse Markers (DMs)
• words or short phrases that set relations
  between prior discourse and current utterances
• e.g., now, well, anyway, next, however, by the
  way, in any case, etc.
• Cue phrases directly signal the structure of
  discourse (Hirschberg Litman, 1993)

3
Intonational variation for DMs

• Prosody differentiates the uses of
  multi-functional DMs
• F It was at one time all almost all Jewish.
• Now its I would say si-
• J sixty Jewish,
  forty Italian.
• (Schiffrin, 1987 p231)

4
Intonational variation for DMs

• They arent brought up the same way.
• Now Italian people are very outgoing.
• They are very generous.
• When they put a meal on the table its a meal.
• Now these boys were Irish.
• They lived different.
• (Schiffrin, 1987 p231)

5
Intonation and Meaning

• Intonational contours used to indicate pragmatic
  meaning (Pierrehumbert Hirschberg, 1990)
• e.g., H is new, L-H is continuation rise
• LH is commonly used to mark a correction or
  contrast (p. 296)
• e.g., Dont hand me the blue pen. Hand me the
  RED one.

6
Intonation and Online Discourse Processing

• Intonation affects comprehension
• LH used felicitously aids sentence
  comprehension (Bock Mazella, 1983)
• e.g., ARNOLD/Arnold didnt FIX/fix the radio.
  DORIS fixed the radio (p. 66)
• LH can lead to anticipatory eye movements (Ito
  and Speer, in press)
• e.g., First, hang the green ball.
  Now, hang the BLUE ball (p. 11)

7
LH and DMs

• Ito Speer contd
• Hang the blue ball.
• ?And THEN/then, hang the GREEN ball.
• No anticipatory eye movements, but faster decline
  from target when LH on DM
• LH on DM may lead to anticipation of contrast

8
Research Question

• Does LH on a DM lead to expectation of
  contrast between preceding utterance and upcoming
  utterance?
• ? If yes, is the effect global or local?
• Is accentual property of a DM interpreted a/c
  prosodic structure of prior context?

9
The Experiment

• Discourse completion task
• subjects listen to short stories and provide an
  appropriate continuation
• accentual pattern of stimuli varied to test
  effect of LH in prior discourse and DM
• Hypothesis
• LH on DM evokes a contrast between preceding
  utterance and upcoming utterance
• Prosodic and informational structure of responses
  should be more predictable from preceding
  sentence when LH on DM versus H on DM

10
Materials

• Three-part stimulus
• Context two people in naturalistic situation
  Collaborative and Companionship contexts
• This spring, Mary and Adam finally started
  gardening.
• Prompt one person from Context engages in an
  action strict SVO structure
• Early on, Mary planted basil.
• DM 4 temporal DMS prompt sequential event test
  effect of DM accentual pattern
• And then, And next, After that, Following
  that

11
Materials (contd)

• 3 prosodic variations of Prompt
• Mary planted basil.
• H !H L-L
• MARY planted basil.
• LH L-L H L-L
• Mary planted BASIL.
• H LH L-L

12
Prompt 1
13
Prompt 2
14
Prompt 3
15
Average Duration and f0 Value of Prompts
16
Materials (contd)

• 2 prosodic variations of DM
• And THEN.
• LH L-H
• And then.
• H L-H

17
DM 1
18
DM 2
19
Average Duration and f0 Value of DMs
20
Experimental Conditions
Conditions 1-6
Examples of Conditions 1-6
21
Experimental Setup

• 48 target trials (8 per condition)
• 48 filler trials
• intransitives and datives exhibiting LH on
  subject, verb, or direct/indirect object
• included however as DM
• 6 lists, 3 blocks per list

22
Procedure

• Participants (25 total) seated in soundproof
  booth and presented stimuli through Eprime
• Continuations recorded in Praat V4.5.15

23
Data Analysis

• Each continuation coded for status as a
  parallel or non-parallel continuation
• parallel involves syntactic/thematic structures
  and discourse purpose
• coding gives view of direct contrast within
  discourse context

24
Parallel Continuation

• Syntactic structure
• SVO
• Thematic structure
• agent - transitive verb - patient
• Discourse purpose
• Contributes to topic/goal of discourse in a way
  parallel to the Prompt

25
Parallel Continuation (contd)

• This spring, Mary and Adam finally started
  gardening.
• Early on, Mary planted basil.
• And then
• she planted oregano.
• Adam planted tomatoes.
• Before heading into the movie theater, Jenna and
  Wally stopped at the concessions stand.
• Considering many options, Wally chose popcorn.
• And then
• Jenna bought Sour Patch Kids.

26
Parallel Continuation (contd)

• Before choosing their new home, Drew and Nora
  toured many houses.
• In the first house, Drew explored the kitchen.
• After that
• Nora checked out the bathroom.

27
Non-Parallel Continuation

• Syntactic/Thematic violation
• After setting up their tent, Gary and Laurie
  started the BBQ.
• Before anything else, Laurie seasoned the meat.
• And next
• she put the meat on the grill.
• Gary turned the barbeque on.
• To renovate the kitchen, both Arnold and Molly
  spent a lot of money.
• Initially, Molly replaced the cabinets.
• Following that
• Arnold put the new tile on the floor.

28
Non-Parallel Continuation (contd)

• Discourse Purpose violation
• This spring, Mary and Adam finally started
  gardening.
• Early on, Mary planted basil.
• And then
• Adam uprooted the basil.
• Before hanging the new curtains, Lara and Brian
  decided to clean the living room.
• First, Lara opened the window.
• After that
• Brian threw the lamp out.

29
Ambiguous Cases

• Some continuations could not be classified as
  parallel or non-parallel
• When the power went down, Julie and Ben were
  cooking dinner.
• Unable to see, Julie dropped a plate.
• And next
• Ben lit a candle. ? discourse purpose?

30
Ambiguous Cases

• For the first time in their lives, Donna and
  Bill stayed in a five-star resort hotel.
• Soon after lunch, Donna visited spa.
• Following that
• Bill got a massage.

31
Information Status

• Tags motivated by Ch. 2 A theory of discourse
  coherence in
• Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar
  by Andrew Kehler (2002)

32
Example Transcription
33
Predictions

• Informational focus should be more predictable
  from
• Prompt when LH on DM than Hon DM

34
DM Accent and Parallel Continuation

• 573 continuations analyzed
• 203 parallel (35)
• LH on DM did not induce parallel continuation
  more than H

35
Experimental Conditions and Parallel Continuation

• LH on DM effect hinted at only when object of
  Prompt had LH (C5 6)

36
Experimental Conditions and Parallel Continuation

• LH on DM effect hinted at only when object of
  Prompt had LH (C5 6)

• Prompt 1 (C1C2 60)
• Prompt 2 (C3C4 72)
• Prompt 3 (C5C6 71)
• Parallel continuations
• appeared more often when
• Prompt had LH

37
Information Structure of Continuation Types

• Parallel continuations exhibit mainly contrastive
  subjects, parallel verbs, and contrastive
  arguments

38
Information Status Distribution in Parallel
Continuations

• No clear effect of DM accent in Prompt 1 (no LH)

• Patterns
• emerge for
• other Prompt
• types

39
Subject Prominence (C3 4)

• Contrastive
• subject more
• often when
• DM has LH

40
Subject Prominence (C3 4)

• Contrastive
• subject more
• often when
• DM had LH

• Subject retained
• more often
• when DM did
• not have LH

41
Object Prominence (C5 6)

• More contrastive
• arguments when
• DM did not have
• LH

42
Object Prominence (C5 6)

• More contrastive
• arguments when
• DM did not have
• LH

• More retained
• arguments when
• DM had LH

43
Interesting Findings

• Prominent Subject (C3 4)
• LH on DM led to more contrastive subjects and
  less retained subjects
• ? aligns with predictions
• Prominent Object (C5 6)
• LH on DM led to less contrastive arguments and
  more retained arguments ? opposite of predictions

44
Three Possibilities

• (1) LH on DM reinforces contrast in subject
  position but blocks contrast in object position
• Subject ?? LH
• Object ?? LH

Subject
Object
45
Three Possibilities

• (2) LH in Prompt lead to different expectations
  a/c the accent location
• ? DM reinforces the appropriate expectation
• Subject
• Object

Subject
LH
Object
46
Three Possibilities

• (3) LH in Prompt leads to different
  expectations due to FOCUS PROJECTION
• ? DM highlights the optional broader focus?
• Subject
• Object

Subject
LH
Object
VP (Object)
LH
47
Contrast Frequency Subject vs. Object

• Overall, data exhibited more subject contrast
  than object contrast
• Prosodically highlighted subject evokes
  alternative agent from Context ? salient
• Prosodically highlighted object evokes set of
  possible alternatives ? less salient

48
Cross-Subject Variability

• Continuation strategies varied widely between
  subjects
• Parallel continuations 12 to 29
• Contrastive subjects 10 to 41
• Parallel verbs 8 to 24
• Contrastive arguments 11 to 26

49
Stimuli Problems

• Some items exhibit bias for contrast due to
  salience of contrastive entities
• Following dinner, Al and Gail stopped at the ice
  cream shop.
• After waiting in line, Al ordered vanilla.
• After that
• many salient contrasts with vanilla
• semantically biased to parallel continuation

50
Stimuli Problems (contd)

• Some items exhibit bias against contrast
• With the tornado siren sounding, Rose and Greg
  prepared to take cover.
• In a hurry, Greg entered the basement.
• And then
• few, if any, salient contrasts with basement
• Parallel continuation mainly limited to Rose
  entered the basement.

51
Stimuli Problems (contd)

• Some items did exhibit appropriate salience of
  contrastive entities
• Before selling their old Civic, Dewey and Anna
  took a whole day to clean it.
• When they were nearly finished, Anna wiped the
  dashboard.
• And then
• several salient contrasts with dashboard
• not biased toward parallel continuation

52
Future Directions

• More subjects will be analyzed to confirm
  patterns presented here
• ToBI transcription and f0 analysis
• Study to be conducted again with more carefully
  controlled stimuli
• Perhaps present both alternative subjects and
  objects mentioned in Context
• Eye tracking to test effect of LH in prior
  discourse and on DM

53
Acknowledgments

• Laurie Maynell - voice of sitmuli
• Julie McGory - ToBI transcription
• Shari Speer - IRB help and considering
  problematic transcriptions